American Academy of Microbiology

Dynamic Issuesin ScientificIntegrity:CollaborativeResearch

..

.

Dynamic Issuesin ScientificIntegrity:CollaborativeResearch

a report fromThe American Academy of Microbiology

Prepared byFrancis L. Macrina

COLLOQUIUM STEERING COMMITTEE

Francis L. Macrina (Chair)Virginia Commonwealth University

Susan GottesmanNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

Bernard P. SagikDrexel University

Keith R. YamamotoUniversity of California, San Francisco

BOARD OF GOVERNORS,AMERICAN ACADEMYOF MICROBIOLOGY

Rita R. Colwell (Chair)University of Maryland Biotechnolo~ Institute

Harold S. GinsbergNational Institutes of Health

Susan A. HenryCarnegie Mellon University

Martha M. HoweUniversity of Tennessee, Memphis

Eugene W. NesterUniversity of Washington

Mary Jane OsbomUniversity of Connecticut Health Center School of Medicine

Melvin I. SimonCalifornia Institute of Technology

4

Preface

This report from the colloquium on “Dynamic Issues in Scientific Integrity:,Collaborative Research” is published by the American Academy ofMicrobiology which provides summary statements on timely and impor-

tant issues for scientists, governmental agencies, industry, and the public. TheAcademy focuses on issues that have broad implications for society. Thiscolloquium convened 12 individuals who have significant experience with theissues under consideration. The colloquium was supported by the NationalScience Foundation and the American Society for Microbiology.

This white paper includes an in-depth analysis of the issues and recommenda-tions to individuals involved in teaching courses in scientific integrity, to the broadmicrobiology community, to policy makers who have concerns about collaborativescientific research, and to the lay public. Scientific societies, as well as academicinstitutions, have sponsored workshops and forums that have addressed the entirespectrum of issues in scientific integrity. These meetings have provided the opportu-nity to describe the relevant issues, but have provided little analysis and guidance.The American Academy of Microbiology has focused on a very specific area—collaborative scientific research—in order to explore and develop the issues indepth. This report will be of maximum use to scientists and to instructors indefining, refining, and developing their courses in scientific integrity. It will serve aswell to assist the lay public in understanding the complexity of the issues surround-ing collaborative scientific research.

Specifically, issues addressed during the colloquium included the following:

●

●

●

●

●

●

defining contributionsdefining authorshipdefining responsibilities of individual researchers involved incollaborative relationshipsdefining intellectual property ownershipdefining accountabilitymonitoring

The American Academy of Microbiology thanks Frank Macrina, SusanGottesman, Bernard Sagik, and Keith Yamamoto for organizing and conductingan excellent meeting. Academy staff worked hard to ensure the success of thecolloquium. Most of all, the Academy is grateful to the colloquium participantswho generously gave of their time and ideas to this important project.

Rita R. ColwellCbaiz Board of GovernorsAmerican Academy of Microbiology

5

COLLOQUIUM PARTICIPANTS

David Botstein,Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

Gail Burd,University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Peter T. Cherbas,Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

David V. Goeddel,Tularik, Inc., South San Francisco, California

Susan Gottesman,National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Heath, Bethesda, Maryland

C.K. Gunsalus,University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois

Barbara H. Iglewski,University of Rochester Medical CenteG RochesteG New York

Francis L. Macrina,Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia

Bernard P. Sagik,Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

- Caroline Whitbeck,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Patricia A. Woolf,Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

Keith R. Yamamoto,University of California, San Francisco, California

INTRODUCTION

c,-*,. collaboration in scientific researchhas grown dramatically in thiscentury. Collaborative research can

increase the ability of scientists to makesignificant advances in their fields ingeneral and in their own research pro-grams specifically. Because of the special-ization and sophistication of modernresearch methods, collaborations becomenecessary whenever researchers wish totake their research programs in newdirections or realize the practical benefitsof joint endeavors. Interdisciplinarycollaborations may also open up entirelynew areas of research. Advances incommunication technologies augmentopportunities for research interactions.Especially in the biomedical, agricultural,and natural sciences, research oftenmobilizes intellectual and technical

.resources in ways that lead to scientificdiscovery of direct benefit to society.

The study of the human genome exemplifies-,

the power of collaborative research. Basicresearch on gene structure, location, replica-tion, and repair can be related to generalproblems of disease etiology through coopera-tive efforts. The coupling of epidemiologicobservations with biochemical and geneticdata through collaborative research canaccelerate progress. The resulting molecularunderstanding of disease allows the rapiddevelopment of novel diagnostic, therapeutic,or preventative applications.

The recent discovery of a class of colon cancergenes provides a cogent example. Geneticistsand molecular biologists who were studying .inherited colon cancer discovered a highincidence of DNA instability in certain pa-tients. Microbial geneticists and biochemistsmade connections between this observationand the molecular events that accompany DNArepair in bacteria and yeasts. Collaborativestudies among all these scientific groupsresulted in an explosion of information aboutthe molecular background for a common formof cancer. Knowledge of the genetic basis ofand biochemical pathway for the repair ofDNA in singl=ell organisms laid the criticalfoundation. Bacterial and yeast DNA repairgenes provided clues to the function of eucary-otic homologs, leading to an understanding ofthe etiology and pathogenesis of this cancer.Chromosomal mapping and determination ofthe nucleotide sequences of these homologsthen set the stage for analysis of the genes ofaffected patients. The results demonstrated thatmutations in these genes were clearly associ-ated with colorectal cancer. One summary ofthis story is found in a review by Modrich(Modrich, P. 1994. Mismatch repair, geneticstability, and cancer. Science 266:1959–1960).

7

There are different levels ofcollaboration, ranging fromtemporary arrangements that“stitchn together individualcontributions to longer–termventures in which researchersfrom different laboratories targeta specific problem to projectsthat eventually lead to the mergerof groups that are focused onlarge, multidisciplinary problems.Flexibility is important becauseroles and responsibilities incollaborations often evolve overtime. Collaborations involvingscientists from disparate fields ofstudy can be especially compli-cated, because the parties maynot have common vocabularies,compatible working styles, orshared assumptions about thecollaboration. These complexitiescan be increased when thescientists are working in differentcountries. Interdisciplinary andinternational collaborations placespecial responsibilities andobligations upon the participants.

Interdisciplinary collaborationsregularly involve work on topicsthat appear very different fromdifferent disciplinary perspectives,and participants should be pre-pared to recognize the distinctproblems with which their col-leagues must grapple. If thecollaboration is to be fruitful, theresearchers must be prepared tounderstand the implications thatthe problems and solutions of onediscipline hold for the problemsand solutions of the other and toaddress the problems appropriateto their own discipline. Forexample, collaborators mustrecognize the criteria that col-leagues from other disciplines useto establish what has occurred in agiven process. In the case of acollaboration between molecularbiologists and chemical engineersto scale up a process for making atherapeutic protein, the biologist’scriteria for when the process hasreached a certain stage may be acolor change in the solution.Qualitative criteria such as colorchange may serve well for theconcentrations, quantities, andglass containers with which thebiologist works in a laboratory.However, that color change willnot be a useful indicator for aprocess taking place at greaterconcentrations or in stainless steelvats in a factory operation, and itwill have to be replaced withprecise specifications of quantita-tive measures such as dissolvedoxygen concentration, pH, and

residual sugar concentration. Toselect parameters, for example, thechange in concentration necessaryto manufacture the proteincost-effectively in quantity, engi-neers must understand the underly-ing physical and chemical mecha-nisms in the biological process.

Suppose that the biologist has ayield of 2 g of the therapeuticprotein /liter of solution. Toproduce a sufficient quantity of theprotein efficiently, the engineermust typically increase the concen-tration, say to 50 @liter. At thisconcentration, new problems mustbe considered, such as supplyingsufficient nutrients to the cellproducing the protein. Largeconcentrations of nutrients mayinhibit the synthesis of the thera-peutic protein or cause the deathof the cell. Feeding of the celltherefore must be carefully moni-tored in the scaled–up process.Furthermore, concentrations whichvary only a little in the biologist’swork may vary much more widelyin a scaled–up operation. Forexample, concentrations of selec-tive antibiotics used to maintainplasmid vectors may vary in small–vs. large–scale cultures. Suchdifferences between the problemsthat collaborators in differentdisciplines address and the vari-ables they must consider should beappreciated when a collaboration isbegun and be discussed throughoutthe effort.

8

The issues described below have muchin common with those seen in collabo-rations between mentors and trainees orbetween peers in the same laboratory,but the special nature of these relation-ships and the obligations of the mentorin guiding the process raise issues be-yond those addressed in this document.

PRINCIPLES AND ISSUES

The overriding principles in science arethat methods, data, and observationsmust be reported honestly and thatsources of contributions must beacknowledged. These principles applyequally to individual and collaborativeendeavors. Joint efforts, however,present some circumstances and issuesthat do not necessarily arise in othersettings. All collaborations-workingarrangements between and amongscientists—require communication anda well–founded trust. There are norigid prescriptions or rules that willensure a uniquely correct outcome inevery situation; the principles of scienceand the guidelines below should beused together to develop successful andproductive collaborations.

Major issues for collaborators include:●

●

●

●

●

agreeing upon the goal of the collabora-tion, including expectations for out-comes or products;establishing and maintaining effectivecommunication and making assump-tions as clear as possible;defining the expected contributions eachparticipant can make;allocating responsibilities;estimating an initial time frame for thecollaboration;

●

●

●

articulating the legal obligations of eachparty, especially with respect to intellec-tual property requirements and regula-tory compliance;specifying the process and criteria bywhich authorship and credit will beassigned; andrecognizing accountability to researchinstitutions, funding agencies, theprofession, and the public.

While the timing of discussion ofthese issues may vary-they may bediscussed in advance of the collabora-tion or as they arise—these are topicsthat the collaborators will likely needto consider at some point during theproject; early discussion will oftenprevent misunderstanding.

RESPONSIBILITY ANDACCOUNTABILITY

Data and Methods. Collaborativeefforts are no different from otherresearch endeavors with respect to theresponsibilities of authors to bethorough, honest, and forthcoming.However, they do add complexities inthat every author may not have directaccess to or control over all relevantaspects of the collaboration.

Sharing. Collaborators must agree howdata and materials will be shared.Some collaborators pool all theirassets; others make very limited andexplicit arrangements for definedpurposes. Although raising suchmatters can be awkward, it is prefer-able to making assumptions. Expecta-tions should be stated prior to or, ifneeded, during the collaboration.

Two labs collaborate to clone atranscription factor. Lab A haspurified the protein and pre-pared antibodies; lab B willscreen an expression library toidentify the clone. Clearly, lab Bwill receive a portion of thehighly specific monoclinalantibody available and theresulting DNA clone will beshared. Will lab B also receivethe hybridoma cell line? In asimilar vein, consider a case inwhich lab C has recovered andsequenced a cDNA that appearsto encode a new member of aprotease family. They collabo-rate with lab D, experts in thatprotein family, sending in vitro-translated protein for character-ization. Should lab D alsoexpect access to the clonedcDNA?

Cases like these often arise.Sometimes the same answerseems clear to both parties;frequently it does not. Theresolution has obvious bearingon the abilities of the individuallabs not only to replicate por-tions of each other’s work, butalso to undertake independentwork on proprietary materialsat the conclusion of the collabo-ration. The only safe course isto discuss and settle these issuesas soon as they can be foreseen.

--

9

10

In 1943, Salvador Luria and MaxDelbruck, in their famous paperdemonstrating the preexistence of mutantbacteria in a population (Luria, S., and M.Delbruck. 1943. Mutations of bacteria fromvirus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics28:491–51 1), found it useful to add thefollowing footnote: “Theory by M.D.,experiments by S. E. L.” While specificattribution of thought and experiment isprobably not a wise idea for most papers,publications increasingly may represent thecontributions of researchers in multiplefields, multiple institutions, and multiplecountries. In cases in which, for instance, onelaboratory has carried out an NMR analysisof a protein, a second group has contributeda genetic analysis of the same protein, and athird group has provided a theoreticalanalysis of the implications of the work, thechoice of corresponding author may berelatively arbitrary. Scientists requestingmaterials or clarifications from thecorresponding author may find themselvesredirected to the appropriate laboratoy.Specification of some degree of splitresponsibility in the paper itself alsoacknowledgesthe reality that, in interdisciplinary andi n t e r l a b o r a t o y c o l l a b o r a t i o n s ,

Authorship. Authors receive credit fortheir contribution to research and acceptresponsibility for the accuracy and integrity oftheir publications. While allocation and orderof authorship are matters to be settled amongcollaborators, there is a significant publicinterest in equitable and accurate assignmentof credit. It follows that authorship must not beconsidered as a form of remuneration, aprivilege of status, or even a reward forcontributions which are only of a technicalnature. Collaborators may differ in theirevaluations of different kinds of contributions;this may require negotiation and compromise,but it is improper to award authorship toindividuals who can take no significantresponsibility for the published work. In theabsence of specific indications to the contrary,readers will assume that the authors of apublication are jointly responsible for the workdescribed. Authors may wish to forestall thisassumption by specifying the nature of theirindividual contributions.

We urge journals to support authors efforts to specify the contributions and responsibilities of the laboratories that

contributed to the work. Interdisciplinarycollaborations in which expertise fromdifferent fields and/or backgrounds is broughttogether increase the need for suchspecifications beyond the normal imperatives. errors made by one group are not al

ways detectable by the collaborators.

Confidentiality. Colleagues mayhave very different expectationsabout how long information will bekept confidential. Scientists differ intheir preferences for discussingresearch progress. Researchers maynot fully understand the effect of adisclosure on collaborators inanother field. Finally, legal restric-tions may sometimes apply. Whenand how information will bereleased are items that should beaddressed and resolved amongcollaborators.

Compliance. Individuals areresponsible for compliance with allapplicable regulations governing

their research. Nonetheless, collabo-rators should know that the failureof anyone associated with theproject to comply with regulationsmay carry consequences for all ofthe scientists involved in the study.

Certain aspects of research in the biomedical and natural-.

sciences are governed by federal and state laws, policies, orregulations. Examples include the use of humans and animalsin experimentation, the use of radioisotopes, and the transferof certain types of infectious agents. Regulations also apply tothe use of certain hazardous substances and the disclosure ofpotential risks of such usage to coworkers. Consider acollaboration between a basic scientist and a clinical re-searcher located at different institutions. The clinical re-searcher is providing serum samples from patients who havea specific bacterial infection. These serum samples areshipped by express courier to the laboratory of the basicscientist, where they are immunologically analyzed. For sucha collaboration, an approved human use protocol must be inplace at the clinical researcher’s institution, which wouldinclude a provision for seeking and obtaining informedconsent from all patients participating in the project. Ifapproval was not obtained, use of the serum samples inlaboratory studies would be inappropriate. Discovery of afailure to comply with relevant regulations might necessitatethe destruction of the clinical materials and prohibition of theuse of any existing data generated in the basic scientist’s lab.

In addition, rules governing the use of biohazardous materialsmight apply to the analyses of the serum samples in the basicscientist’s lab. The scientist would be responsible for inform-ing all coworkers of the potential biohazards of dealing withmaterials of human origin and for instructing them in thehandling, storage, and disposal of the samples. An accident inthe basic scientist’s lab involving the serum specimens mightleave both collaborative parties open to sanctions and evenlegal actions under certain circumstances. Thus, in such ascenario, although regulations may at first inspection beassociated with only one party of the collaboration, failure tocomply may have implications for or effects on all membersof the joint effort.

--11

Many research institutions andjournals require that scientistsdisclose the sources of theirfinancial support. Because theremay be sensitivity about somesources of funds, collaboratorsshould as a matter of courseinform each other about allfunding for joint projects. Promptand full disclosure of otherfinancial support helps to avoidmisunderstanding and suspicionof bias.

If there is an allegation of irregu-larities in a joint study, scientistsshould immediately inform allother members of the team andthe appropriate authorities intheir research institutions andfunding agencies. There is nosubstitute for a thorough, coop-erative review of all researchmaterials, methods, calculations,results, and conclusions. Pru-dence dictates that manuscripts inthe process of publication shouldbe withdrawn if any coauthor

thinks the allegation has merit. Inany case, journal editors shouldbe notified so that their judgementcan be fully informed.

If misconduct is found to haveoccurred in published research,coauthors have individual andcollective responsibility to correctthe published record of theirwork. Preferably, all authors, afterconsultation, should submit aretraction with their names in thesame order as in the originalreport and with a full and com-plete citation of the originalarticle. Editors and reviewers ofscientific journals relied onrepresentations in the originalmanuscript; it cannot be assumedthat they will automatically

concur in the authors’ recalcula-tions. Authors must providesufficient background material toallow the editors to make in-formed decisions about thecompromised science.

Accountability. Scientists engaged inresearch have many constituencies towhich they must be accountable, atvarious levels. Public funding carriesspecial responsibilities, as doesinvolvement with problems that mayaffect public health and/or theenvironment. In addition, participantsin joint projects may have contractualand fiscal obligations that will affectthe collaboration. Such obligationsmust be disclosed and accommodated.

Intellectual Property Issues. One ofthe special obligations of collabora-tors is to be informed about theirlegal responsibilities with respect toproducts of the joint research.Collaborators should tell each otherabout their individual responsibilitiesand be prepared to meet the require-ments of their own institutions.

12

Most employers—universities and private corpora-tions alike—require employees to assign ownershipfor inventions arising out of their research. Twofactors distinguish university and corporateresearchers with respect to intellectual propertyissues:

1) In many jurisdictions, publishing before apply-ing for patent protection renders it impossible everto secure a patent on the published material.

2) University-based inventors usually have morelatitude to make decisions about whether to seekpatent protection (and if so, in what jurisdictions)or whether to seek instead priority publicationwithout such protection. Corporate researcherstypically do not have the freedom to make thesechoices, and often their work is subject to a varietyof constraints intended to protect the corporation’sintellectual property, which can include confidenti-ality and nondisclosure requirements, laboratory

notebook dating and signing protocols, andmaterial use agreements that limit the ways inwhich certain samples can be analyzed, tested,incorporated into other materials, and/or shared.

When individuals working under different con-straints and in different environments collaborate,their expectations and assumptions may be sodivergent that it does not occur to the participantsto discuss them. For example, a corporate re-searcher whose laboratory notebook is signed andwitnessed every day and who meets periodically

with lawyers to discuss what aspects of the workshould lead to patent applications may not realizethat a university researcher colleague could bepreparing manuscripts for publication without suchreviews and without realizing the effect it may haveon the ability to secure patent protection.

Rewards. Collaborations yield productsand rewards in various forms. It is notrealistic to allocate credit in advance ofthe project because the work may lead indirections not originally anticipated.However, the participants should discussexplicitly how credit will be allocated andwho will make the decisions. This appliesespecially under circumstances in whichcollaborators are from different sectors(i.e., industry and academia or differentcountries whose intellectual traditionsmay vary) and those in which legalconsiderations may intrude (i.e., patentsand other issues of intellectual propertyprotection). Outlets for presentation ofthe work, how public presentations willbe made and by whom, and timing of therelease of results should be discussed.

COLLABORATIONS BETWEENINDUSTRY AND ACADEMIA

Collaborating across sectors amplifies theneed for partners to define and under-stand the constraints under which eachoperates. The most obvious of these arerestrictions on publication and require-ments flowing from legal obligations ofthe participants, but more subtle issuescan also arise in areas such as laboratoryand institutional practices, for example,whether it is acceptable to delay inmaking public the results of dissertationresearch.

13

Scientists in industry and a university who areinterested in initiating a joint project mayencounter unanticipated hurdles. Although theissues raised by a collaboration between ascientist in industry and one in a universitymay also arise in collaborations betweenscientists in different universities, they are notusually addressed explicitly in advance. Theseare: how the decision to publish or not publishis made, how invention disclosures and patentapplications are processed; and liability for anydamages arising from the use or misuse of amaterial, software, or product.

The results of collaborative research involvingscientists in industry and in a university may beused to support applications for investigativeor marketing permits for products regulated bythe Food and Drug Administration or otherfederal agency. Such joint research comesunder the provisions of “Good LaboratoryPractices, ” or GLP, which prescribes proce-dures for documenting, recording, reviewing,and retaining experimental protocols andfindings in considerable detail. When a study isto be submitted to a federal regulatory agency,the industrial sponsor or collaborator isrequired to notify the academic collaboratorthat the research must be conducted in compli-ance with GLP. One of the provisions of GLPis that the laboratory of the academic collabo-rator may be inspected by authorized person-nel from the regulatory agency. Studies forregulatory agencies shall be conducted accord-ing to written protocols, which are prepared inadvance, reviewed, and signed by the desig-nated study director, the sponsor, and the

“quality assurance officer. ” Protocols aresubject to examination by both external federalinspectors and quality assurance officers. Thecontents of GLP protocols are more detailedthan those usually found in laboratory note-books of academic investigators conducting“discovery” or “basic” research. A laboratoryconducting GLP studies is monitored by aquality assurance officer, who selectivelyobserves the facilities and experiments andchecks the equipment and records periodically.Academic scientists who are unfamiliar withquality assurance tend to consider this auditprocess an undesirable intrusion into theirresearch. The final reports of a GLP study aresigned by the principal scientists engaged inthe work, the study director, and the qualityassurance officer. The signature of the qualityassurance officer acknowledges regulatorycompliance of the studies. All records, includ-ing raw data, protocols, and final reports, aremaintained in identified archives. The time thatdocumentation must be retained varies, but itshould be assumed to be a minimum of 5 yearsfrom the date of submission to a regulatoryagency. Collaborations between academic andindustrial scientists that involve GLP are three–way dialogs in which the quality assuranceofficer is an important participant. The issuespertaining to a successful collaboration be-tween an industrial and an academic scientistare essentially the same as those described foracademic collaborators. The primary differencelies in the requirements and procedures fordocumenting the research and findings.

14

Expectations and assumptions that shouldbe addressed in cross–sector collaborationsinclude:

standard operating procedures in eachresearcher’s environment;special obligations of confidentiality andrestrictions on release of information thatapply to each collaborator;understandings about sharing materials andresources;authorship and patenting issues;concerns unique to graduate students (thesistopics, etc.); andwhether additional participants figure in thecollaboration (e.g., lawyers, patent officers,marketing officers, sponsored researchofficials, etc.).

COLLABORATION ANDPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Institutions and review committees findit difficult to allocate appropriate creditfor publications generated by faculty incollaborative research projects. Becauseindependent work is the prevailing measureof scientific identity, junior faculty establish-ing their careers need to recognize theimportance of balancing collaborative andindependent work. In addition to thecomplexities associated with disentanglingindividuals’ contributions to collaborativeefforts, women and minorities can face

systematic undervaluation of their contri-butions. Actions may range from subtle,unconscious behavior to deliberatediscrimination.

These are formidable challenges, but thebenefits of collaboration are so great that -

efforts to remove obstacles must be made.Especially in emerging fields, collaborationscan facilitate novel research approaches;special recognition and credit should beallocated in such cases. The solution is forinstitutions to discover new ways to evalu-ate joint research realistically. Independenceshould not be equated with a requirementfor noncollaborative research.

15

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the ResearchProcess, Volume I. (1992). National Academy Press, 2101Constitution Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055(197 pages). The work of a panel commissioned by the NationalAcademy of Sciences, covering a wide range of the practical andtheoretical issues germane to responsible conduct in the profes-sion. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss issues regarding the principles andpractices of research which are relevant to collaborative research.

Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the ResearchProcess, Volume II. (1993). National Academy Press, 2101Constitution Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055(275 pages). Volume II of work compiled by panel commissionedby the National Academy of Sciences. The emphasis of thisvolume is on background, policies, and guidelines in the practiceof research. Verbatim documents used at a variety of institutionsafford a look at specific issues that may impinge on collaborativeresearch.

On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (2ndedition). National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.,P.O. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055 (27 pages). A succinctguide to research practices, including several case studies fordiscussions.

The following books cover a variety of topics directly orindirectly relevant to collaborative research practices. Frequently,they offer case studies designed to stimulate discussion aboutproblems and issues related to responsible scientific conduct.

Bulger, Ruth E., Elizabeth Heitman, and Stanley J. Reiser (Edi-tors). 1993. The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences.Cambridge University Press, New York.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Scientific Integrity: An IntroductoryText with Cases. American Society for Microbiology Press,Washington, D.C.

Pensla~ Robin L. (Editor). 1995. Research Ethics: Cases &Materials. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Whitbeck, Caroline. 1995. Understanding Ethical Problems inEngineering Practice and Research. Cambridge University Press,New York.

16